ACTIVISM

Thursday, 22 October 2009

America was outraged when it learned that American soldiers were stripping naked Abu Ghraib prisoners, trussing them up like animals for branding, walking them around naked on all fours with dog leashes and making them simulate gay sex.

America was apathetic when it learned that heterosexual American soldiers were stripping naked gay American soldiers, trussing them up like animals for branding, walking them around naked on all fours with dog leashes and making them simulate gay sex.

President Obama rushed to condemn the "horrors" of Abu Ghraib but implied before the assembled gay elite at the HRC Washington Gala that the exact same horrors targeting gay American sailors as a direct result of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy would be addressed at some point in the future when the timing is right. No rush. Just queers. No threat of Al Qaeda terrorist retaliation.

As it turned out many of the Abu Ghraib victims were innocent men "profiled" for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, targeted and imprisoned for being who they are; not for what they had done.

The same was done to American gay men imprisoned by DADT.

The Washington Post recently commented that "The US military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexual soldiers has the perverse effect of protecting bigots who commit violence against homosexuals, while preventing homosexuals who comply with the policy from seeking protection."

Because homosexuals can't admit their sexuality to senior officers, they can't complain about abuses, and that provides cover for those committing violence against them.

The gay sailors had two options: Tolerate the Abu Ghraib treatment at the hands of their fellow citizens or see their careers destroyed.

A gay sailor recently reported that after joining the Navy's canine bomb-sniffing unit in Bahrain in 2004, he was subjected to repeated hazing by his commanding officer.

In fact, CNN reports that gay men in this unit were routinely subjected to numerous acts of humiliation, including being hog-tied, being force-fed dog treats, and being duct-taped to a chair and left inside a dog kennel.

"Shop talk in the unit revolved around sex, either the prostitute-filled parties of days past or the escapades my comrades looked forward to," the sailor told the Washington Post. "They interpreted my silence and total lack of interest as an admission of homosexuality. My higher-ups seemed to think that gave them the right to bind me to chairs, ridicule me, hose me down and lock me in a feces-filled dog kennel.

"I told no one about what I was living through," he continued. "I feared that reporting the abuse would lead to an investigation into my sexuality. My leaders and fellow sailors were punishing me for keeping my sexuality to myself, punishing me because I wouldn't 'tell.'"

The man the sailor blamed for the abuses was his commanding officer, Chief Master-at-Arms Michael Toussaint. But following an investigation, the Navy decided to charge the unit's second-in-command, Petty Officer Jennifer Valdivia.

As it turned out, Valdivia was herself the victim of "hazing." Valdivia was once "dressed only in a bed sheet, handcuffed to a bed, and forced into a catfight with two other women." After learning she would be blamed for the hazing, Valdivia committed suicide, leaving behind a message on her MySpace page in which she said she was "tired of being blamed for other people's mistakes."

Following a Youth Radio investigation into the matter earlier this year, some members of Congress are beginning to sit up and take notice. Rocha's ordeal is being championed by US House Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), a former Navy admiral who, according to CNN, "is so disturbed about allegations of abuse and hazing in the Navy's canine unit in Bahrain he's demanding answers from the Navy, asking the same question some sailors are: Where is the accountability?" Sestak has reportedly requested an inquiry into Rocha's allegations, sending a letter to the Secretary of the Navy asking for answers about the allegations.

Obama not only has nothing to say about what is now his policy as Commander-in-chief, but sees nothing wrong with allowing these horrors to continue under DADT until he's had more time to negotiate with the Evangelicals.

SO WHERE IS OUR GAY MALCOLM X?

Discussion of the black civil rights movements mostly centers on two men: Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama, one had a dream and the other has partly fulfilled it.

But neither King nor Obama would have been possible without the rage of the radical left. We forget that at our own peril. Think American citizens forced to roll in dog feces by their fellow citizens. Think of the bloody growing epidemic of violent assaults on gay Americans from New York City to Chicago to Salt Lake City.

We rarely discuss Malcolm X, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. We prefer to think of Dr. King's peaceful demonstrations and adulation of Gandhi. We ignore the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam. But King would never have "succeeded" without them. Never.

King was moved from the FBI watch list to polite society when his peaceful movement was failing, leading to rage represented by the so-called radical left. As the tide of black anger rose, King and eventually his memory became a safe place to go for white America, Congress and The White House.

One could argue that Barack Obama owes his presidency much more to the Black Panthers and the angry Black Power movement than to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

With this in mind, I felt an ever-deepening sense of betrayal and disappointment last week when the Obama White House officially characterized the emerging Prop 8 Generation grass roots gay activist movement--as compared to his pet queers at HRC, GLSEN and GLAAD--as the 'Internet left fringe".

In fact, I was horrified. Is Obama just another het white man in black face? If one is outraged by the almost weekly attacks on gay men, the torture of gay soldiers at the hands of their own comrades, gay homeless, gay unemployed, segregation and discrimination, then one is on the "left fringe". So says the White House.

So we now live in a world where HRC, GLAAD and GLSEN, thanks to their unwavering support of Obama’s worn out inventory of empty rhetoric have become the Gay Right, while those activists following in the footsteps of Stonewall have now become the left fringe. The force of the combined homophobia of the White House and the internal homophobia of the gay establishment truly takes my breath away.

Despite not yet having fulfilled his campaign promises to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning gays from serving openly in the military or the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Obama spoke to a largely supportive audience at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign. But at a march for equality the next day organized by a younger generation critical of the HRC and other established gay rights organizations, gay activists signaled that their patience with the president has grown thin.

Not long after the march ended, NBC News' John Harwood reported that the White House is not terribly bothered about the criticism coming from gay rights groups. Citing an Obama administration adviser, Harwood said because the president is "doing well with 90 percent or more of Democrats," the White House "views this opposition as really part of the Internet left fringe." Harwood added that the White House believes that its opposition from the left, including bloggers, "need to take off the pajamas, get dressed, and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult."

(I'll have you know that I usually blog in the nude and do not even own a pair of pajamas!)

Rep. Barney Frank has been dismissive of the Marchers, saying they provided little more than "emotional satisfaction." He has noted that the powerful National Rifle Association spends its time and money pressuring politicians, not holding marchers. The only thing the march is going to put pressure on, Frank predicted, "is the grass."

Rep. Frank, the nation's most powerful openly gay elected official, is right. The National Rifle Association is much more effective than the combined forces of the gay advocacy establishment. After all, the NRA has strong advocates and supporters in Congress, clearly Mr. Frank confirms that we do not. We have Uncle Toms.

Monday, 12 October 2009

The fight for equality was not advanced this weekend, but I firmly believe that history will eventually ascribe as much importance to October 10-11, 2009 as it does to June 28-29, 1969--albeit in very different ways.

Both weekends mark a tipping point in gay history--but in the case of Stonewall, a civil rights movement was born while in the case of 10/11/2009, a civil rights movement was aborted.

Perhaps the Prop 8 Generation will rise from this like a Phoenix. Perhaps.

Three things happened this weekend.

1. Obama used the star power of his office to overshadow what should have been an historic moment of gay activism. In fact the President did not even acknowledge the event happening on his own "front lawn".

2. Joe Solmonese and his Human Rights Campaign put on a display of excess and sycophancy that set new standards of betrayal, hypocrisy, self-indulgence and incompetence.

3. The combined efforts of the White House, our leading openly gay politician, Barney Frank, and our two largest gay advocacy groups, HRC and GLAAD successfully marginalized the March on Washington and gave it the appearance of whiny, off message and out-of-place.

A bleak and horribly negative assessment, you say?

Here’s what I saw: HRC, opposed to the Washington March from the very beginning, orchestrated a spectacular media attention-grabbing star-studded DC gala dinner of more than 3,000 affluent white elitist and privileged queer men and women on the eve of the March with silver-tongued Obama as the key note speaker.

It was the gay power, Hollywood and financial elite celebrating themselves.

The result—which I believe was well planned and very much intended—was to overshadow the efforts of authentic gay activists converging on DC allowing HRC to maintain is primacy over gay America and Obama to maintain his golden boy image, and in both case to control the critical mainstream media, to control the message.

The March on Washington was cleverly shifted from being about "us" to being about the President, Nobel Prize winner and HRC hero.

Obama's ambush of the March on Washington actually began last Thursday when his administration announced the appointment of openly gay lawyer, David Huebner as United States Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa. Obama's PR folks are using this to bolster the President's image as an agent of change--even though Huebner is actually the third and not the first gay man given an ambassadorial post by a U.S. President. This might have had some credibility if Obama was sending an openly gay ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Jamaica or Russia--but New Zealand? Yawn.

Huebner, in case you've never heard of him, is the general counsel for GLAAD--so check GLAAD off the list of threats to the President's image as a champion of gay rights. The timing was obvious and intended to control the media message, diminishing the impact of Sunday's March, giving the March the appearance of "fringe".

HRC and it’s Saturday night gala were then used by the Obama administration to deflect mainstream media criticism and power-queer criticism from his administration for it’s complete lack of action on unfulfilled promises and core issues: DADT, ENDA, hate crimes, Prop 8 redux (Maine, Washington State), DOMA, gay genocide in American-made Iraq and the rising tsunami of bigotry and violence targeting gay men, women and children nationwide. On all of this Obama runs from silent to “when the time is right.” His speech maintained the status quo: generous but vague words and no timetable. And for those of you who will point to passage of the hate crimes bill in the House--coincidentally just in time to diminish the message of the March--it has not yet passed the Senate where it could very well languish indefinitely or be used as a bargaining chip to win Republican support for other agenda items.

And then Barney Frank provided the icing on this stale fruit cake, using his position as the most visible and influential openly gay elected officially in the nation to go on record with the Associated Press denouncing and mocking the March on Washington.

As a result of all this perfidious behavior, America has at best been presented with a gay rights movement that has split right down the middle between an amiable sycophantic gay establishment and a bunch of "minor" fringe groups.

On June 29, 1969, the gay rights movement came together and changed the world. On October 11, 2009, the gay rights movement split apart and poured several million dollars into the HRC treasury.

Sunday’s March should have been historic in a good way. But Obama cannily crafted a Saturday night ambush at the HRC corral, giving the appearance of being a remarkably pro-gay administration--more than effectively dampening the gravitas and national credibility of Sunday’s March on Washington.

Sure, the queer tree may have fallen in D.C. on Sunday, but the media wasn't listening, distracted by silver tongue and his black-tied aristogays.

And once again, to the approving applause and cheers of thousands of gay clowns, the President once again committed to nothing, doing nothing and accomplishing nothing.

It's important to note that Obama is the second President to deliver the HRC Annual Gala keynote address. The first, of course was Bill Clinton. And that administration gave us DADT and DOMA. It is to President Clinton's credit that he has now publicly apologized for both.

Speeches are nothing but theater and the fact that Obama's Presidency is thus far based on nothing but skin color, gender and speeches is a terrifying prospect for anyone who is paying attention to reality.

In a story released last week, the Associated Press draws a spooky conclusion: "A Democrat in the White House. Demands for sweeping civil rights protections. Religious opponents working to undo a string of state-based victories. That was the backdrop in 1979 when gay rights activists staged their first national march in Washington. Thirty years later, with the landscape looking much the same, thousands of advocates are preparing to rally again in the nation's capital this weekend. And they are demanding many of the same things: a bill to outlaw job discrimination based on gender, a law that would treat attacks on gays as federal hate crimes, and a presidential order allowing gays to serve openly in the military."

Yes, Sunday's March demonstrated much social progress since 1979: legally married gay couples, straight supporters from mainstream religious denominations to name but a couple. But what has also emerged since 1979 is a professional gay advocacy movement that has bargained away our civil rights and equality for, dare I say it, a few pieces of silver.

The big gay story this weekend was not the March on Washington as it should have been. The big gay story this weekend was Obama's empty HRC "broken-record" gala speech. Well and cleverly done, Mr. President and well and cleverly done, Mr. Solmonese. Having Obama as your key note speaker surely paid your high six figure salary for the next few years, but it cost the gay rights movement badly needed momentum and impact. This was not the time to kiss the President's ass and provide him with a big gay platform. This was a time to bang down his door and force him to action. We don't need HRC to keep giving Obama these free passes...or as my grandmother used to say we need HRC like we need a "loch in kop". (Ok, all you non-Jews, go google.)

President Obama will do well to remember that he was elected to awaken America and the world from the 8-year-long George W. Bush nightmare. The Nobel Peace Prize should have been a wake up call that he was not elected to kowtow to the Evangelicals and the Republicans. His Saturday Night Special suggests that he did not read the message from Sweden and is continuing down the path to America's suicide come November of 2012.

Barack Obama made it clear this weekend that he has the audacity and the hubris to gamble my civil rights on his ability to win a second term in the White House and the gay "establishment" led by HRC is happy to support him in this very reckless bet.

Obama has the arrogance to repeat that change doesn't happen overnight. He tells us to be patient. Mr. Obama, it has been almost 15,000 overnights since Stonewall. That's more patience than has ever been asked of any other oppressed minority in this country. Mr. Obama: Simply demand that your Democratic Congress add sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, include us under existing fair housing legislation, workplace discrimination legislation and be done with this fiasco. And give us the same rights and protections that the Supreme Court gave to your parents in 1967.

Patience, you say? Shame on you. Who are you afraid of when it comes to treasuring and nurturing something so basic as equality?

Thursday, 16 July 2009

Clearly, no matter how the story is spun by gay African Americans, the majority of heterosexual African Americans betray their own legacy to crusade against equality and basic human and civil rights for gay Americans.

Some say it's racism to single out the black community in this fight, but one cannot deny the tragic implications of a black community that has lost the core message of its own struggle.

Ironically, the second greatest civil rights leaders in American history--Martin Luther King Jr. after Abraham Lincoln--clearly would have been outraged by this profound betrayal of his dream.

King died before the gay rights movement emerged so we only have his actions and the words of the person who knew him best to rely on.

His actions were clear. His right hand man, betrayed by the black Civil Rights movement after King's death, was Bayard Rustin, an openly gay black man. Despite the fact the Rustin was the lead architect behind King's March on Washington, he is mostly ignored by contemporary black leaders because of his homosexuality.

And Corretta Scott king was certain that her husband would have demanded equality for all. To that end, she dedicated much of her time to LGBT equality issues until her death in 2006.

"Like Martin, I don't believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others", she would tell black civil rights leaders angered by gays and lesbians comparing their struggle to their own. She would quote her husband and say, I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible."

And now, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the 50-year-old civil rights organization founded by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others including Rustin--is seeking to remove the president of its Los Angeles chapter in response to his support of same-sex marriage in California.

Today, the heirs of the iconic champions of the 20th Century's historic Civil Rights movement are waging war against equality. One can almost excuse white America for this as they represent a long tradition of bigotry; but black America should hang its collective in shame.

The effort by the Atlanta-based SCLC is meeting stiff resistance in Los Angeles from both the board of the local chapter, whose chairman is secretary of the state’s Democratic Party, and the City Council president.

During the battle last fall over Proposition 8, an amendment to the State Constitution that banned same-sex marriage, the chapter’s president, the Rev. Eric P. Lee, was more than a tangential figure for the opposition. He was front and center at an opposition group’s large rally at City Hall and marched in the blazing sun for 15 miles in Fresno.

Many other local African-American pastors prepared mailings featuring church leaders in support of the proposition and linking their views to Barack Obama, then the Democratic nominee for president.

You may recall that our gay-friendly President openly opposed and still opposes same-sex marriage; and he also remained silent during the Prop 8 campaign.

Seventy percent of black voters backed the ban, which passed with 52 percent of the vote.

Mr. Lee said that his opposition to Proposition 8 had “created tension in my life I had never experienced with black clergy.” “But it was clear to me,” he added, “that any time you deny one group of people the same right that other groups have, that is a clear violation of civil rights and I have to speak up on that.”

In April, Mr. Lee attended a board meeting of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Kansas City, Mo., and found himself once again in the minority position among his colleagues on the issue of same-sex marriage, but he was told, he said, by the group’s interim president, Byron Clay, that the organization publicly had a neutral position on the issue.

So a month later, Mr. Lee said, he was surprised to receive a call from the National Board of Directors summoning him immediately to Atlanta to explain why he had taken a position on same-sex marriage without the authority of the national board. Explaining that he was unable to come to Atlanta on such short notice, Mr. Lee then received two letters from the organization’s lawyer, Dexter M. Wimbish, threatening him with suspension or removal as president of the Los Angeles chapter if he did not come soon to explain himself.

Mr. Lee, the former pastor of In His Steps, an African-American Wesleyan church in Los Angeles that he described as “very conservative,” said he saw failures both in the leadership of the conference (“Dr. King would be turning over in his grave right now,” he said) and the largely white anti-Proposition 8 movement that did not more actively seek the support of church-going African-Americans. “The black church played a significant role in Proposition 8 passing,” Mr. Lee said. “The failure of the campaign was to presume that African-Americans would see this as a civil rights issue.”

Mr. Lee continues to fight for his role in the SLCL, but the national organization is determined to stand against gay rights. On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr., the flesh and blood man was assassinated. In 2009, the organization he founded is working hard to now assassinate his dream.

And Obama yet again stands silent in the face of this historic calamity. Obama was supposed to be the fulfillment of the dream not a harbinger of its demise.

Monday, 29 June 2009

Something extraordinary happened on Sunday, June 28 on the 40th Anniversary of the Stonewall Riots. New York City did not hold a Gay Pride Parade but rather a March for Equality and for our rights as human beings and American citizens.

I kept counting and by the end of the march it was clear that activists, advocates and a diversity of gay men and women that only New York in its extraordinary multiculturalism could deliver had overwhelmingly outnumbered the go go boys, the drag queens and the sexual exhibitionists that have run--or should I say overrun New York Pride for far too many years.

Sure, they were there, the naked, feathered and leather bound ones, but they were a small minority and almost lost in the crowd of families, advocates, professionals, blue and white collar queers of all sorts and every major New York City and New York State politician.

I loved the sexual aspects of the event, but the scales seemed to have tipped back to a healthy balance of Pride, sexual freedom and political and social activism.

What happened? I don't know. But I cried a few times and left the parade exhilarated. Was it all about the 40th? Maybe.

Have New Yorkers finally had enough of this inequality nonsense, the Prop 8 lynch mobs, Evangelical hate-mongering, the abuse of gay children and Obama's forgotten promises?

The Spirit of Stonewall was alive and well and you could feel the joy as well as the anger in the air up and down the nation's most prestigious avenue.

And with both Cleve Jones and Dustin Lance Black among the Grand Marshals, chants of "Stonewall Stonewall Stonewall" soared well above Manhattan's skyscrapers and surely shook the foundations of the Empire State Building--and hopefully were heard deep within the spiritually barren soaring spaces of Saint Patrick's Cathedral.

A partial list of participants says it all. The United States Census Bureau, Governor David Paterson, Senator Chuck Schumer, the Consulate of the State of Israel, the City of Amsterdam (New York's DNA sister), the New York Police Department, the New York Fire Department, Saint Bartholomew's Church, Saint Paul's Lutheran Church, Princeton University, the Episcopal Diocese of New York, the Million Gay March, the Madison Avenue Baptist Church, the New York City Council and of course every national gay organization you can list.

Sure, there were some bars and sexual fetishists--but they followed and did not lead. This was an event that honored the rebellion of June 28, 1969; and maybe, just maybe portends a return to outrage.

Wednesday, 17 June 2009

Applauding HRC for its recent letter criticizing Barack Obama is like applauding George W. Bush for his New Orleans flyover in the aftermath of Katrina.

The only letter that would carry any validity and import from Joe Solmonese would be one in which Joe repudiates himself documenting his own laundry list of failures and betrayal of the gay community.

The same incompetent self-serving buffoons who betrayed Hillary and led the gay community like proverbial lemmings right off the Obama cliff are now squealing like stuck pigs over their own handiwork. HRC and the rest helped put Obama in the White House because he was a black man and in their excitement neglected to pay heed to the fact that Obama was actually just another heterosexual white man treating us like some kind of subspecies.

In fact, the Obama Administration's recent grotesque and offensive defense of DOMA is just another obvious, painful and humiliating example of HRC's relentless incompetence and waste of gay advocacy dollars and resources. Obama and the DOJ have done nothing surprising here for anyone who has been paying attention since the campaign of 2008.

What is surprising is that the gay community is once again swallowing Joe Solmonese play acting at activism.

The gay community should not be attacking Obama and his Justice Department for its recent actions, we should be attacking HRC for its ridiculous incompetence.

I'm once again reminded of the fable of the scorpion and the frog.

Looking for food, the scorpion must cross a river. He asks a nearby frog if he might ride the frog's back to the other side. The frog looks at the scorpion in some confusion. "You must think I'm stupid. If I let you on my back you will sting me to death."

"Don't be silly," answers the scorpion. "That would make no sense. If I sting you while we're crossing the river, we will both drown. It would be suicide for me to do such a thing."

Seeing the scorpion's logic, the frog invites him on to his back and they set off across the river. Halfway across, the scorpion stings the frog and they both start to drown.

As the frog approaches death, he asks the drowning scorpion, "Why did you do that; now we're both drowning!"

"It's my nature," explains the scorpion.

I'll make it easy for you. Obama is the scorpion and the gay community is the frog.

Perhaps the most offensive line in the now famous HRC letter is their declaration that HRC is the voice of "millions of gay Americans".

By what right do they make that claim? This is an organization that measures its membership by anyone who has ever visited their website or requested information or donated at least $5 at least once. They do not remove the dead, the expired or the angry from their rolls. In fact, if you email them an angry letter, they automatically count you as a member. I suspect I've been counted at least a dozen times. I'm not making this up; it's been reported repeatedly in the gay press.

The Obama administration's disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act is more an example of HRC incompetence than a revelation about Obama.

Having poured millions of gay dollars into the Obama campaign and after several much celebrated dinners, meetings and private one-on-ones at the White House--all of which Joe Solmonese used to soak even more money out of the gay community--HRC's influence and impact on the Obama Administration results in a legal document comparing gay marriage and same sex love to incest. Now that's a job well done. With lobbyists and advocates like Joe Solmonese, who needs HIV?

And yet the mass media and the gay blogs are exploding with praise for HRC in the wake of this now famous letter attacking the Obama administration. Putting aside the obvious cliches about too little, too late, do we really want, as a community, our fate in the hands of this obscenely incompetent Joe Solmonese and his blood sucking organization? Why are we applauding a letter that still leaves our leadership in the assumed hands of HRC?

Obviously, part of the praise of HRC stems from the fact that this is the first time Solmonese has done anything of even minor merit. But it is nonetheless ridiculous to commend HRC at this time.

Maybe when Solmonese admits to being a complete and utter failure and joins the call for outrage and civil disobedience--but until then Solmonese's letter is worth less than toilet paper and his outrage is grotesquely misdirected. He should be poking himself in the eye, not our President. And as for the media and all the gay bloggers who are applauding HRC's letter? What a sad and tragic lot.

Monday, 15 June 2009

Bill Browning's strategy for equality is procrastination. If you don't know about Bill Browning, you're probably using your brain time efficiently.

He's a very popular gay blogger who is to gay thought what mashed potatoes are to the culinary arts: mushy, bland and comforting. He's from Indiana and likes things done slowly and quietly, politely. Heck, gay Americans have been officially riding on the back of the bus since 1964 so what's another half century or so?

One of Harvey Milk's co-activists has called for a long-overdue march on Washington. He says enough is enough. Milk would have been screaming from a soapbox thrown together on the Washington Mall. Browning says the timing is just wrong.

When would be the right time for a march on Washington, Mr. Browning? Do tell.

I rarely--if ever--reference other gay blogs and bloggers because with very rare exceptions they are--in my arrogant and short-tempered view--mediocre thinkers, dreadful writers and consistently and relentlessly superficial. They focus on their readership numbers and have little to nothing to say that is challenging or useful.

Browning's awful mush of a blog, The Bilerico Project is one of the most dreadful examples of this.

Fortunately for Bill, the straight world loves limp fags and that's what he delivers. So it was no surprise to me when my google news alerts coughed up Bill Browning's Huffington Post abomination "10 Reasons Why a LGBT March on Washington is a Bad Idea".

Huh? Are we rallying behind the call for outrage? Nope, we're throwing a bucket of cold water on it and calling a meeting to schedule a meeting to hold a series of meetings to discuss when and if a march on Washington might be convenient.

And then there's the permits, the hotel reservations, and discussions to see when it would be most comfortable for the White House and Congress.

An attempt is being made to step away from the failed gay advocacy of the past 20 years and organize an angry and bold march on Washington come this October.

Bill Browning, a bland and mediocre fixture in the contemporary so called gay advocacy movement, is doing his best to stop it.

And of course, the ineffective and extremely well-groomed liberal establishment is embracing the Browning of gay rights because red is just such an aggressive, angry and threatening color.

Browning's main argument against a gay march on Washington--as we otherwise watch the gay rights movement go up in Obama smoke and mirrors--is that the timing is bad.

Browning and his kind of have been poised on the edge of protest since the days of George I, ready to pounce at just the right moment. Can you picture it? Bill Browning, Joe Solmonese and the rest crouching like tigers in the underbrush? So about 20 years later, one would imagine that all this crouching has caused severe arthritis.

Of course, Browning knows best. He has built that circle jerk of a blog called The Bilerico project (he has repeatedly invited me to join it and I have politely declined repeatedly--after this post, I suppose the invitations will finally stop and I will be delinked from Browning MySpace and Facebook pages. Sigh.) And he proudly boasts about his consistent role in the "flyover states" gay rights movement these past 10 or so year--another circle jerk.

And now he will muster his brown forces to stop the march on Washington.

Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Tony Perkins have done more for gay rights than Bill Browning could ever hope to accomplish.

Browning blogs on the Huffington Post: "Chalk this up as one of the worst ideas ever. Speaking at Utah Pride yesterday, Cleve Jones announced plans for a march on Washington on October 11th.

"An activist who worked alongside slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk announced plans yesterday for a march on Washington this fall to demand that Congress establish equality and marriage rights for the lesbian, gay, and transgender community. Cleve Jones said the march planned for Oct. 11 will coincide with National Coming Out Day and launch a new chapter in the gay rights movement. He made the announcement during a rally at the annual Utah Pride Festival."

"There are 10 major reasons why this a horrible idea."

Well, I do love a top ten list, so Browning has my attention.

Browning's big reason for stopping the march?

"Planning a huge march on Washington isn't something you can throw together in five months. There's a lot of logistics required -- hotel rooms reserved, acquiring the necessary permits, coordinating with DC police, laying out the purpose, program and messaging, etc."

Naively, I thought a mass act of civil disobedience and mass protest in this nation required a bunch of outraged people, some tents, sleeping bags and some buses. Silly me. I had imagined that the key ingredients for a demonstration and an effective expression of outrage are my Constitutional right of assembly (no permits required), tents, sleeping bags and a challenged police force struggling to cope along with a White House that finally must face the legacy of Martin Luther King that it pretends to honor and in fact has completely betrayed.

Do you really think the Obama Adminstration will deny food and toilet facilities to hundreds of thousands of Americans raging at his front door?

But according to Bill Browning, it takes more to plan a march on Washington than a June wedding.

Browning continues: "While National Coming Out Day is a swell time of year symbolically, the Mall is already reserved -- and usually is up to a year in advance."

There goes that wedding analogy again.

And now fasten your seat belts. Here comes a rant from a true activist.

"With two other large events scheduled there already there's no way you could fit even more people in the space. My sources tell me that Cleve and Co have already been denied a permit for that day. Congress isn't in session on October 11th. What's the point of holding the march on a day when none of the participants can lobby the actual folks who can solve our issues? We'd be better off staying home and trekking to our Congress person's offices than going all the way to DC for a big gay circuit party. None of this has been coordinated with anyone other than a small circle of people. None of the large organizations have been consulted -- although that's not necessarily a bad thing if you've got the grassroots behind you. A small circle of people is not the grassroots though; it's just a different cadre of wanna-be movers and shakers. This year's marriage fight isn't in California. It's in Maine. Maine voters will be facing a referendum to repeal the same-sex marriage law the state recently passed. We've already lost in California; it's time to move beyond and focus on where it makes the best sense strategically to make a stand. Sucking time, resources and queer power to work on a do-nothing march on DC is a tactical mistake. A march on Washington will not bring marriage equality to flyover country. It will help to prod conservatives to rally and focus energy and money into states like Maine (that could repeal marriage) or Indiana (where we've successfully fought off an amendment every year for almost a decade). In their zeal to bring marriage back to California, the coastal queers are willing to sacrifice us on the alter of domesticity. California is not the end-all-be-all of queer America. They've already sucked a huge amount of cash from our movement and middle America. Look at Arizona's amendment battle -- which they'd already won once in an election -- and how little money was donated to fight their second battle. The amendment passed this time after they were heavily outspent by the Mormons and affiliated groups. California will see marriage back on the ballot soon; they should march and organize in the state that will be voting. They need to reach California voters and not the folks in Arkansas. In this economy, not too many of us can afford to take a vacation to DC on such short notice. Those of us lucky enough to still have jobs don't want to take chances asking for time off to travel to DC. I'd rather make the house payment than buy plane tickets for two to DC, pay for a hotel while the city is already full of other events, buy incidentals and meals, etc. Travel costs alone is a house payment for me and there's not nearly enough time to budget it in. What happens when you throw a march and no one shows up because they can't afford to go? The majority of US queers still need basic protections from discrimination. So little emphasis has been placed on helping us achieve that basic hallmark of civil rights that a national effort is the only chance we have for protection. While the first paragraph claims the march is "to demand that Congress establish equality and marriage rights," the only section both the media and middle America is going to see is "marriage rights." Look back at the headline of the article quoted, or the fact that all of Cleve's quotes are about Prop 8, California and same-sex marriage to see how the spin on this is going to go. That vague term "equality" has already been devalued from the first headline. This is a public relations nightmare for flyover country. Anyone got a good reason why we should march this year other than it would make us feel good to vent a bit since this won't accomplish anything useful? Any other reasons than "Because we want to!"? Pam's House Blend blogger Pam Spaulding agrees that the march is a waste of time."

Now wasn't that fun to read?

Browning really outdid himself. House payments. Heck, October is harvest time. The corn is more important than outrage, that's for sure!

Brown in a safe color. It's not bold and challenging like crimson, shocking pink or orange, it's not clear and straightforward like black or white. And it's also the color of excrement. All of Browning's reasons for inaction are good. I'm sure he has rationally and logically given thousands of gay men and women justification to remain complacent, happily shucking corn back on the plantation.

The greatest concentration of gay men and women is to be found on the HRC membership lists and in the daily numbers of such blogs as The Bilerico Project. What this tells me is that our so-called community is truly bankrupt, intellectually, philosophically and politically.

Our community has become little more than an Adam Sandler homophobic joke. A man of courage and history calls for a mass march on Washington to demand equality, and the gay leaches of contemporary advocacy rush to suck the blood right out of it.

If the stink of Browning doesn't overwhelm the march on Washington, I will be there--even if it means having to juggle a few bills.

I wonder how long it took the patrons of Stonewall to obtain their permit?

Let me say that I'm certain that Bill Browning is a good and decent man; but he has no business calling himself a gay activist.

Wednesday, 10 June 2009

The problem with most Pride parades and parties is that they are not about equality, civil rights and critical gay issues like unsafe schools, gay child abuse, gay bashing and discrimination.

They used to be, but on this 40th Anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, we must acknowledge that somewhere along the way, we lost the "riot", we lost the "activism" and we lost the crusade for equal rights and an end to discrimination.

So what are we left with and how did we get here?

The gay community in its diversity of colors, ages, economic status, ethnicities, lifestyles, religions, politics, philosophies, professions and educations is not represented during high profile major urban Pride celebrations.

In fact, the Gay has been completely removed from Pride and today's parades from New York to Los Angeles are rather a celebration and a declaration of human sexuality and sexual freedom.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that--but it is a general American issue and not a gay rights issue. The right to penetrate the partner of your choice may seem like a gay rights issue, but it is not. It's a fight that has been going on in this nation since the Puritans encountered the naked savages and has endured over the centuries. It's hot buttons are "living in sin", extra-marital sex, pre-marital sex, the decriminalization of interracial marriage, the infamous Elvis Pelvis and Janet Jackson's Superbowl nipple jewelry.

But if either cause is to be won: sexual liberation or gay rights, clarity and focus must be put front and center. And clearly, these are two radically different causes--and we do both causes a disservice when we fight for sexual liberation and assume that the tactic used will have any bearing civil rights. This is profoundly flawed thinking. As long as we pretend and misrepresent--intentionally or otherwise--Pride as an event designed to advance equality and end discrimination based on sexual orientation, we will continue to suffer the endless setbacks that have become the hallmark of the contemporary gay rights movement.

Many will disagree with me and those who do, I assume, define a woman by her tits since they are defining me by my hairy ass.

From Folsom to Fifth Avenue, today's high profile events are tributes to human sexual diversity and most certainly a challenge to American Puritanism and religious fundamentalism. The many BDSM street fairs, abs-dominated Pride parades and Queer art festivals have everything to do with sexual pleasure, sexual fulfillment and sexual expression.

Gay children daily under physical and verbal assault in American schools are not served by g-stringed gay go-go boys wiggling their packages on national and local television or on the front pages of our daily newspapers. Topless dykes on bikes do not help push ENDA through Congress. And hirsute bears in assless chaps parading down main street do not strengthen our arguments to end DADT.

In fact, these aggressive and assertive expressions of human sexuality and diversity pose a direct and extraordinarily bold threat to sex as procreation within a "sacred" union between one man and one woman. And this is a fight worth fighting in my view, but it's not the fight that's going to save a sissy from losing his job over a limp wrist.

One might even argue that much in the way AIDS activism hijacked the Stonewall movement, gay pride has now been hijacked by those who fight for sexual liberation. It's evolution gone wrong.

Ironically the expression of gay pride has lent credibility and some degree of respectability to the fight for sexual liberation, but the cost has been a failed gay rights movement. And at the end of the day we must--absolutely must--ask ourselves the question: Are we fighting for the right to tongue kiss on main street or are we fighting for the right to build lives free from discrimination in the workplace, education, health care and housing?

America would have long ago accepted equality based on sexual orientation if not for the fact that the highlight of each year of the fight for "equality" is actually an outrageous expression of sexual freedom and an assault on the very core of religious fundamentalism and America's Puritan soul. Equality is a reasonable goal in this nation. Sexual freedom, not so much.

Wednesday, 22 April 2009

I have (too often) spoken to the fatal flaws in Pride celebrations and parades. What began as a political act of civil disobedience eventually morphed into just another over-the-top gay muscle boy act of hedonism and brazen sexuality.

Today's Pride parades and parties help us forget our abandonment and betrayal of the principles established on that hot summer night on Christopher Street some 40 years ago.

Today's Pride events mostly diminish the so-called LGBT community and help clarify and define for a mostly homophobic nation why it is right to protect itself from a culture of perpetual adolescent erotic self-indulgence and crystal meth.

And as if it couldn't get any worse, South Beach has now hosted its first "Pride" parade, some 40 years into the process.

Why now?

One might ask how it is and why it is that South Beach, one of the world's top gay party destinations has suddenly found it's inner activist?

Why is it that the party and sex capital of gay culture is suddenly crusading for gay rights? A pastel-hued Art Deco stretch of bars, clubs, over-designed luxury hotels and beaches swarming with hungry steroidal male super model wannabes, gay porn stars and more muscle bound tanned gay hustlers than there are beads at Mardi Gras is suddenly, after 40 years presenting itself as a champion of equality?

Babak Movahedi, chairman of the Miami Beach Gay Pride said it best as an estimated crowd of 20,000 celebrants poured out of the clubs and bars, hiked up their thongs and abandoned the white sands for a prance down Ocean Drive:

"Please realize we have united together in Miami Beach for the first time in a very good cause."

ENDA? No. To protest Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No.

The South Beach businessman (Miami Beach Gay Pride is nothing more than the local gay-dominated Chamber of Commerce) is hoping to restore Miami Beach as a top destination for gay tourists.

Yes, dear reader, South Beach has finally jumped on the Pride bandwagon because it's just good business.

Babak explains that in recent years, other Florida cities including Fort Lauderdale and Key West have siphoned some of those tourism dollars. ''Let's put everything aside and become one united group reminding the gay world that South Beach is a top gay party destination."

He really said that. That's how the head of Miami Beach Pride characterized the resort's first gay pride parade, as a marketing communications stunt to revive tourism, especially in these recessionary times.

The Miami Herald reports that "Drag queens in elaborate costumes posed for pictures, while couples -- gay and straight -- donned stickers printed with ''Power is Sexy'' and ``Action is Hot.''

Rainbow-colored Pride flags were everywhere -- around the necks of Chihuahuas, on T-shirts, even flying from the awning of the Palace Bar, whose crowds had spilled onto the street turning Ocean Drive into a nightclub in the sunshine, the Herald reports.

A nightclub in the sunshine? I hope Larry Kramer doesn't read about this; while AIDS hasn't killed, him this just might.

''It's crazy. It's almost as good as the one in Atlanta,'' said Jay Jackson, who stopped on his way back from the beach to capture the festivities on his camera. He and wife Jerolyn were on vacation from St. Louis. ``Ain't nothing wrong. Everybody needs love.''

Parade grand marshalls included fashion designer and gay rights activistRichie Rich and R&B singer Patti LaBelle. ''I'm happy that people are becoming more aware of freedom for everyone,'' LaBelle said. ``Everyone should marry who they want to marry.''

Hate crimes against queers, including violent crimes are at an historic high. Suicide among gay teens is three times higher than among teens in general. More than half of homeless children in American cities are queer, abandoned or abused by their Christian parents and communities. Laws denying equality to queers have now been passed by legislative bodies in 44 States. And even a Democratic-controlled Congress can't pass civil rights legislation banning discrimination against gays in the workplace, housing, education, health care and the military. The list goes on. And how does South Beach respond after 40 years of silence? See photo below.

Ka-ching, ka-ching.

And once again gay America reminds the world of its extraordinary gift for celebrating the unachieved and the unaccomplished. But if its good for business who cares? Right, Mr. Bush?